In a nutshell, the Rockefeller-Hutchison bill proposes to roll the old broadcast industry content control regime onto subcription-based media outlets, namely, cable and satellite television distributors. James Reid, Sen. Rockefeller’s top telecom policy aide, told a crowd at a National Association of Broadcasters conference yesterday that “Sen. Rockefeller plans to offer his bill, in totality, or section-by-section, as amendments to the telecom bill as this goes forward.” If implemented, the bill would:

* Embark on a grand new experiment in regulating “excessively violent” video programming, not just on broadcast television, but also on subscription-based cable and satellite TV;

* Encourage all video programmers to adopt the long-defunct 1951 “Television Code of the National Association of Broadcasters,” which tightly limited advertising time and imposed strict restrictions on various types of speech.

As I noted in my paper on this bill, if passed, S. 616 would represent the most significant congressional effort to regulate speech since the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996.

I don’t need to repeat all the ugly details about this proposal here. Just read my paper and see for yourself how bad things could soon get. Luckily, just about every bit of it is unconstitutional and will likely be struck down by the courts in short order. But it’s still outrageous that Congress would seek to expand content controls in such a radical fashion.

Adam Thierer / Adam is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He previously served as President of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Director of Telecom. Studies at the Cato Institute, and Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation.

If an engineer knowingly goes outside of the restrictions imposed on his work, he can at a minimum lose the contract/sale and at worse go to prison. That’s especially true if lose of life, liberty or property is involved. If a politician does the same, by passing a policy or law that they have no legal authority to pass, they only get to watch their proposal go down in flames. Why isn’t there a DOJ investigation for knowingly proposing an unconstitutional law?

http://www.blindmindseye.com MikeT

If an engineer knowingly goes outside of the restrictions imposed on his work, he can at a minimum lose the contract/sale and at worse go to prison. That’s especially true if lose of life, liberty or property is involved. If a politician does the same, by passing a policy or law that they have no legal authority to pass, they only get to watch their proposal go down in flames. Why isn’t there a DOJ investigation for knowingly proposing an unconstitutional law?